173409P.pdf   08/02/2019  Michael Ingram  v.  United States
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  17-3409
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Chief Judge Smith, Author, with Colloton and Erickson, 
   Circuit Judges] 
   Prisoner Case - Habeas. In claim seeking relief from the mandatory minimum 
   sentence imposed for his 2008 conviction, Ingram asserted in his 2014 
   motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2255, that it was timely under 
   section 2255(f)(4) after discovery of United States v. Young, 960 F. Supp. 
   2d 881 (N.D. Iowa 2013) (noting disparity in imposition of section 851 
   enhancements in the Northern District of Iowa). The district court 
   concluded Ingram's filing was timely under section 2255(f)(4), he acted 
   diligently to discover new facts, and he overcame the procedural default 
   by establishing cause and actual prejudice, but denied the equal 
   protection/selective prosecution claim on the merits. Because Ingram filed 
   his motion three years after the facts underlying the Young decision were 
   released by the Sentencing Commission, Ingram did not exercise due 
   diligence in discovering the facts and filing his motion. Thus, his motion 
   is time- barred.